It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Allen Hills 84001 proved to contain Martian fossils

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+29 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:10 AM
Finally, after over 20 years of analysis, the rock named Allen Hills 84001 has been proved to contain fossils of bacteria that originated on Mars 13,000 or so years ago.

Source - The Daily Mail - UK national newspaper

To be honest, for me this is stunning, as it proved that the 'building blocks' of life are much, much more wide spread than we previously thought, opening the possibilities hugely of life existing elsewhere in the universe.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Fraank Fontaine]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by Fraank Fontaine

So there is /has been life out there,and thats the proof of that

ill like to see people debunk that

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:26 AM
I guess it depends on what your definition of "life" is.

+7 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:36 AM
Stop already with the 'proof' argument. Nobody seriously is claiming that.

From the beginning, McKay and Gibson and others (old friends of mine) argued that the evidence was consistent with biological origin but that all options for non-biological origin needed to be formulated and evaluated.

That's what's been happening. The scientific consensus was against biological origin (as it SHOULD have been since that was the 'extraordinary' theory) and with newer, more detailed tests, those alternate theories have been evaluated and found inadequate to account for the nano-structures.

Not only are the magnetic quasi-bacteria structures similar to those formed on Earth, it's more exciting than that, in my view (and I've always favored the biological origin option).

The martian nano-fossils might not be 'convergent evolution' at all. They may represent a branch of the same species that creates such structures here on Earth. The question then becomes, which planet did the species originate on, and how did it spread from one planet to the other?

This is really exciting, as the OP stated. Even MORE exciting than the news reports scream. Far MORE exciting than funny lights in skies, bouncing blobs on videos, and wild tales from folks.

Boy, does it make us thankful today of all days, to be alive when this stuff is being discovered.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:40 AM
They haven't proved anything yet.

Dr Emily Baldwin, deputy editor of Astronomy Now magazine, told The Sun: 'Many scientists argued that what looked like fossils in the meteorite were really caused by the explosive event, such as an asteroid impact, that blasted the rock out of Mars in the first place.

'But the Nasa team is now saying they have proved that they could not have been produced by the blast itself.

'If the features turn out to have an extra-terrestrial, biological origin and were not formed during the 13,000 years the meteorite spent lying on Earth, this will have profound implications for our understanding of how life evolved in the solar system.'

So all NASA is really saying at this point is that these apparent 'features' were not created in the way they were originally theorized.

It appears terrestrial contamination is yet to be ruled out. To me not much has changed about the argument over the years. Simply that they've now canceled out one explanation.

Hopefully we will have a definitive answer soon.


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:41 AM
Well... I wonder when the Vatican was pre-notified of this upcoming NASA announcement?

"When E.T. Phones The Pope (Washington Post Article)"

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:49 AM
Isn't there a theory which says that we were put on this Earth, just like this rock was. We landed here as micro-organisms and then after a long time, week or so, went from single cell to these fine war hungry creatures we are now.

Couldn't it be an idea that we have been 'seeded' all across the galaxy/universe. If this theory can be proven correct the chances of life on other planets go from, likely to 99.9% sure.

(Oki, longer then a week! Maybe 2...)

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:10 AM
Very interesting.

Panspermia and Directed Panspermia should be given more weight after this.

Liquid water on Mars, signature of life may be coming from Mars and this news article.

I think science has been starting from a faulty assumption that's just based on belief. This assumption says that life HAD to have originated on earth.

It's looking more and more like extraterrestrial life exists throughout the universe at least on a microbial level.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:04 AM
Interesting find. I look forward to the Nasa information as that should be more informative.

Thanks OP.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:05 AM
Maybe this is the "disclosure" everyones jizzing themselfs over

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:17 AM
this could be part of that water planet that used to orbit the earth, i think it was called satan or something.... oh no wait, back to the real world....

interesting stuff, if a new study has confirmed the origins of this 'life' in this rock and it is from mars it'll greatly change the statistical odds of finding other lifeforms near us in space - of course where life can be said to be 'life' and whats 'not-life' causes all manor of debates but this is clearly a vital step towards our modern ideas of abiogenesis, we can assume that if life can get this far then given time and circumstance it can get further, will be really interesting to see how this pans out -sometime in the next few decades we should be able to guess fairly accurately our chances of meeting other life -we might even find a way to detect, view, visit with a probe or whoknows even communicate!

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:48 AM
Excuse my language, but I think that, for today, it can be forgiven.

# YEAH !

I mean, today is a day that will remain in history. Life appears on one planet, it's a miracle. Life happens on two planets, that's a statistic ! And two planets on the very same system. Now we have the confirmation that, where life can appear, it appears !
And yeah, maybe it's the first step to disclosure. Funny this is said just few days after the Vatican tells that extraterrestrial life is not contrary to christian faith. Good news coming very soon !

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:50 AM
Im pretty jealous I didnt catch this one first haha!

This is definitely the biggest discovery, EVER.

although, IMO, Im not all that surprised. i was convinced it was fossilized bacteria back in '96.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:51 AM
Plausibility of life on other planets?


For something that seems so simple, i believe it will have megalithic implications.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:55 AM
drip drip drip

First water on the moon- running water underground on Mars, baceirial fossils from Mars, next......?!

Drip drip drip.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:05 AM
Wow! ... This is really exciting ... I am actually a bit flabbergasted ... For me, personally, this will be the most significant event in human history.

Extra terrestrial life has existed.

The implications are so profound.

This article says that NASA is making an announcement in a couple of days which implies that they have made a decision about what the fossils are.

I mean, NASA wouldn't give a press conference just to tell us they kinda thought this could possibly, maybe be fossilised microbes from Mars but they aren't really sure so don't get too excited ... would they?

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:20 AM
I read this article earlier today. Didn't read anywhere it was proven. In fact, I took it as a maybe because the other explanation had been ruled out. Doesn't mean there's not a billion others.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:38 AM
I don't trust the Daily Mail but do trust that they have cited credible sources and gained an important insight as to what created these 'holes' in the meteorite.

As to how it got here, whether or not it had lifeforms as part of it or if it means extraterrestrial life is abundant?....I don't' know.

But a big +1 as to its importance.


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by JimOberg
That's what's been happening. The scientific consensus was against biological origin (as it SHOULD have been since that was the 'extraordinary' theory)

Really? The proper scientific approach is to be "against" a certain possibility? Shouldn't the proper scientific approach be agnostic open mindedness while investigating the possibilities?

Of course, I'm sure you're right that the scientific consensus was generally "against" this idea, as it is biased "against" many such ideas. But that doesn't mean that this was or is the proper attitude. Proper skepticism is agnostic and unbiased but few 'skeptics' manage to live up to proper skepticism. Nice to know you, at least, were fully open-minded on this issue.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:43 AM
I really hope that the scientists working on this can find out for sure wether the signatures of this bacteria are a result of terrestrial corruption of the mars rock, or if they are formations created on mars itself.
I would also be interested to know roughly how long the rock took to get from Mars to earth. As I understand it, this sample was part of an object that came here as space trash. Would therefore be interested to know when it is assumed the incident that led to this rocks seperation from the martian surface occurred.
As others have pointed out , this doesnt prove anything much , but it certainly whets the appitite for a definitive answer, hopefully soon.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in